Qantas PER-BNE APU Rag incident.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas PER-BNE APU Rag incident.
Well, been reported before, but the ATSB report is now out....
Report here
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...200605999.aspx
Question remains.... why didn't the "traveling LAME" check the APU compartment??
Yet another question remains.... why hasn't he been subject to disciplinary action?
Qantas plane flew after alarm
By Tara Ravens
July 31, 2007 03:26pm
Article from: AAP
A QANTAS plane flew from Darwin to Brisbane with a rag on top of a power generator even after it set off a fire alarm and the device was inspected.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report concluded that the flight on October 11, 2006 ahead despite an alarm going off in an auxiliary power unit while the plane was on the ground.
Aviation firefighters who checked the outside of the Boeing 767-336's auxiliary power unit (APU) found no signs of fire but did not examine inside it, the report found.
They advised the crew there was no sign of fire and the aircraft was returned to the departure gate ready to travel to Brisbane.
"The aircraft was returned to service under the provision of the B767 minimum equipment list item applicable for the operation of the aircraft with an inoperative APU,'' the ATSB report found.
Further investigations in Sydney found a burnt rag left on top of the APU had set off the fire alarm.
The rag had been left there during a maintenance inspection at Darwin airport.
Qantas had or proposed a number of changes as a result of the incident, including making it mandatory for an aircraft engineer or aviation firefighter to inspect the relevant aircraft compartment or area where a fire had occurred.
David Cox of Qantas Engineering said the airline welcomed the findings of the ATSB report.
"Qantas has co-operated fully with the authorities and undertaken a full internal investigation into this incident," he said.
"The report shows the crew followed correct procedure at the time, which included the aircraft returning immediately to the airport and the crew using a fire extinguisher."
By Tara Ravens
July 31, 2007 03:26pm
Article from: AAP
A QANTAS plane flew from Darwin to Brisbane with a rag on top of a power generator even after it set off a fire alarm and the device was inspected.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report concluded that the flight on October 11, 2006 ahead despite an alarm going off in an auxiliary power unit while the plane was on the ground.
Aviation firefighters who checked the outside of the Boeing 767-336's auxiliary power unit (APU) found no signs of fire but did not examine inside it, the report found.
They advised the crew there was no sign of fire and the aircraft was returned to the departure gate ready to travel to Brisbane.
"The aircraft was returned to service under the provision of the B767 minimum equipment list item applicable for the operation of the aircraft with an inoperative APU,'' the ATSB report found.
Further investigations in Sydney found a burnt rag left on top of the APU had set off the fire alarm.
The rag had been left there during a maintenance inspection at Darwin airport.
Qantas had or proposed a number of changes as a result of the incident, including making it mandatory for an aircraft engineer or aviation firefighter to inspect the relevant aircraft compartment or area where a fire had occurred.
David Cox of Qantas Engineering said the airline welcomed the findings of the ATSB report.
"Qantas has co-operated fully with the authorities and undertaken a full internal investigation into this incident," he said.
"The report shows the crew followed correct procedure at the time, which included the aircraft returning immediately to the airport and the crew using a fire extinguisher."
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...200605999.aspx
Question remains.... why didn't the "traveling LAME" check the APU compartment??
Yet another question remains.... why hasn't he been subject to disciplinary action?
Last edited by NAS1801; 31st Jul 2007 at 11:44.
Qantas had or proposed a number of changes as a result of the incident, including making it mandatory for an aircraft engineer or aviation firefighter to inspect the relevant aircraft compartment or area where a fire had occurred.
It rather begs the question why Qantas procedures had deviated so far from what an aviation professional might have reasonably expected to have occurred.
It is now rather gratifying that Qantas's proposed remedial changes will perhaps reflect a modicum of commonsense rather than mere commercial expediency.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was a COX sucker, an out to impress can do man that the company management promoted quite rapidly and for incorrect reasons to help cover up the disaster they created when H245 was shut down.
The concern of the closure h245 (Sydney Heavy in general) is being proven time and time again with incidents like this, aswell as a/c out of hours, classics back on the LA run, reduced reliability and inability of the overflow facility to cope with all the work.
Now the outsoucing fiasco, quality issues and the simple fact QF can't get the planes maintanined and now paying big bucks (more than home)for second rate work.
When will they learn?
The concern of the closure h245 (Sydney Heavy in general) is being proven time and time again with incidents like this, aswell as a/c out of hours, classics back on the LA run, reduced reliability and inability of the overflow facility to cope with all the work.
Now the outsoucing fiasco, quality issues and the simple fact QF can't get the planes maintanined and now paying big bucks (more than home)for second rate work.
When will they learn?
It rather begs the question why Qantas procedures had deviated so far from what an aviation professional might have reasonably expected to have occurred
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a difference between the Singapore fiasco and the rag incident. The staples in wires are a deliberate act of negligence. The Rag in the APU was overlooked by a LAME, not a deliberate act of negligence. Hence, he has not and most likely will not be disciplined. However, should such a person be regularly involved in such incidents, wouldnt you expect some kind of disciplinary action?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's a good bloke the type the current regulatory system (CASA the toothless tiger) encourage and sadly the type QF need now to compete and pull them through these time of uncertainty to get the job signed.
This guy rose to fame quickly due the closure of the Sydney 767 heavy line and the lack of skilled LH's to move to BNE. Undermanned and underskilled at the time, funny who QF picked to make the place work.
I guess QF feel since the regulator won't enforce they have to lower to 'World best(cheapest) practice!
QF's current situation is due CASA not enforcing standards and training other wise they could compete without a problem.
Why we haven't had a disaster yet is due to luck. eg the 19th hole, the crown crack yes oh so close. Another large operator was reaging parts.
On ya CASA.
Where to next.
>
This guy rose to fame quickly due the closure of the Sydney 767 heavy line and the lack of skilled LH's to move to BNE. Undermanned and underskilled at the time, funny who QF picked to make the place work.
I guess QF feel since the regulator won't enforce they have to lower to 'World best(cheapest) practice!
QF's current situation is due CASA not enforcing standards and training other wise they could compete without a problem.
Why we haven't had a disaster yet is due to luck. eg the 19th hole, the crown crack yes oh so close. Another large operator was reaging parts.
On ya CASA.
Where to next.
>
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 54
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If thats the same CL I worked with once up in Sydney once, then Brisbane is in troubles. I think I will have to turn down the job offer up there (that is if I ever get a response back from them. Does anyone know when brisbane will notify us if we got positions or not)?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we were told on thursday that written offers were in the mail ,18 of them to the unlucky ones but they have also had a verbal confermation, but dont worry there have been 5 more resign in the last 4 weeks 2 lames 1 ndt techand 2 ames
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
geez..... whats the problem up there? If things are so good, why have 4 or 5 more resigned? I'd be having 2nd thoughts about accepting the offer woderwick.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 54
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well mate, I grew up in Brisbane. I heard a rumour going round that brisbane have put a halt to other engineering division employing staff internally from bribane heavy maintenance because everyone is leaving.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: BNE
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well mate, I grew up in Brisbane. I heard a rumour going round that brisbane have put a halt to other engineering division employing staff internally from bribane heavy maintenance because everyone is leaving.
Rmm
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: brisneyland
Age: 48
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes there is high turnover up here. Management think its all about money but plenty of AMEs applied to go MEL line on the same level they're now on so maybe it's more than that.
The HR dept in their infinite wisdom pulled all the AMEs applications for the MEL jobs without even having the common courtesy of informing the people concerned.
A perfect example of the calibre of people we get to deal with upstairs.
The HR dept in their infinite wisdom pulled all the AMEs applications for the MEL jobs without even having the common courtesy of informing the people concerned.
A perfect example of the calibre of people we get to deal with upstairs.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 54
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmm. stupid games at the top? I mean isnt it discrimination if a manager doesnt employ someone because of where they work at present. Qantas the unequal opportunity employer.
